I did, and here's the direct quotes:

> Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.

As I said, the cycle length is shortened, yet...

> Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.

...design is not removed from the process, but kept as a cornerstone.

> Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential.

This one might be a bit more of a stretch, but I see here the benefit of designing a simple, elegant solution rather than doing work straight ahead.

In any case, I don't fully agree with the agile manifesto, even when correctly implemented. Particularly this quote is the bane of my existence:

> The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.

Which you can identify as the very opposite of the ever popular 'this meeting could have been an email'.

Once you put it together, you'll realize that the message is:

1. Deliver software. You won't have a manager hounding you to do so.

2. Do good work. You won't have a manager questioning what you've done.

3. Don't spend more time programming than you need to. You need time for managerial tasks.

4. Meet with your teammates. You won't have a manager to act as the go-between.

My opinion is based on being a software engineer (junior through principal) at small, medium, and fortune 100 companies. I also have years of experience as an engineering manager.

It’s silly to be absolute about it, but I think there’s probably a large overlap between competent engineers and people that agree that the agile manifesto is generally a good thing.

What says that? The Manifesto is there to help guide you if your group chooses to forego managers, but it doesn't suggest not having managers is the right tool for the job. An engineer more than anyone should understand the concept of tradeoffs.